Friday August 17, 2018
Home U.S.A. Russia’...

Russia’s Last appeal to US Voters: Russia has no intention of interfering in America’s Presidential Elections

The hope is that Trump will continue to "sow chaos" in the U.S. political system, distracting Washington elites while Moscow defends its own interests

0
//
171
FILE - A woman wears a shirt reading "Trump Putin '16" while waiting for Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump to speak at a campaign event at Plymouth State University in Plymouth, N.H., Feb. 7, 2016. VOA
Republish
Reprint

Moscow, November 8, 2016: As the U.S. presidential campaign winds down to its final hours, Kremlin presidential spokesman Dmitry Peskov issued Russia’s own last appeal to US voters: Russia has no intention of interfering in America’s elections.

Never mind White House charges of Kremlin hacking of Democratic Party computers. Never mind the Wikileaks release of Clinton campaign emails that US intelligence says come from Russia’s secret services. And never mind a relentlessly partisan Russian state media campaign that has promoted one candidate over another – both at home and abroad.

In a year where Russia has taken center stage role in America’s elections, the Kremlin spokesman dismissed interest in any possible Russian subterfuge as simply “absurd.”

NewsGram brings to you current foreign news from all over the world.

“[The Americans] have enough problems without us,” said Peskov.

Welcome to the next phase of the Kremlin’s take on America’s elections:

Whoever the victor, the outcome will show how broken and corrupt the American democracy has become.

And the Kremlin is preparing.

In the run up to election day, Russian state television is warning of ‘dead souls’ rising from the grave to vote (for Clinton); ‘carousel’ voting in the inner cities (for Clinton), decrepit American election infrastructure prone to manipulation (by Clinton); and suggesting the will of American voters (for Trump) will be subverted by the U.S. electoral college delegates (for Clinton).

Dmitry Kiselev, anchor of the weekly Vesti Nedeli (News of the Week), whose nationally televised program has pushed conspiracies surrounding the American vote for months, predicted nothing short of a stolen election (by Clinton).

“After these elections, the U.S. may find its addressing itself with the same phrase that it awards others: that the U.S. elections were not transparent, were conducted without real competition, and included mass falsifications and government abuse.”

“They cannot” concluded Kiselev, “be considered free or democratic.”

The message, says Vladimir Frolov, a foreign policy analyst and columnist with The Moscow Times, is clear.

“The intent is to discredit the system,” he told VOA. “So-called American democracy stinks. It’s a circus and nothing to envy,” said Frolov.

FILE - Russian President Vladimir Putin listens during a meeting in the Kremlin, in Moscow, Russia, July 26, 2016. VOA
FILE – Russian President Vladimir Putin listens during a meeting in the Kremlin, in Moscow, Russia, July 26, 2016. VOA

Kremlin favorite?

Even to casual Russia observers, the Kremlin’s passive preference for a Donald Trump presidency has been apparent, if not understandable, throughout the election season.

Trump’s positions on key issues of the day – from Syria, to Ukraine, to NATO’s expansion into Eastern Europe – dovetail with Russia’s own declared interests. Clinton campaign charges that Trump is colluding with the Russian authorities notwithstanding, FBI-led investigations into the issue have found no proof.

NewsGram brings to you top news around the world today.

That, said Frolov, makes little difference from the Kremlin’s point of view. “What’s not to like?” he asked.

By contrast, state media has relentlessly embraced far-ranging conspiracies surrounding Hillary Clinton’s campaign: Mrs. Clinton is sick and ailing; she is corrupt and facing certain indictment or prison; and she is beholden to nefarious dark forces, including radical terrorist groups.

Most importantly, Clinton is portrayed as virulently anti-Russian.

Russian President Vladimir Putin’s antipathy to the Democratic Party nominee, in particular, is well known. In 2011, he accused Clinton, then U.S. Secretary of State, of “giving the signal” to thousands of Russians who protested rigged elections during the country’s parliamentary elections.

Polls reflect the pileup of negative coverage since.

Over a third of Russians believe a Trump presidency will bring an improvement in relations. By contrast, a majority think U.S.-Russian relations – already deeply troubled – will suffer more under a future Clinton administration. A separate poll showed nearly half of Russians think a direct war between the U.S. and Russia likely.

Amid the growing Russia controversy this election season, Putin denounced candidates playing “the Russia card.” Moscow, said Putin, was willing to work with either Trump or Clinton — provided the new occupant in the White House meets Russian interests halfway.

But Konstantin von Eggart, a long time analyst and host of the independent TV Rain channel’s coverage of the U.S. elections, says he finds the Kremlin’s overt tilt towards Donald Trump “bizarre.”

“I think Russia’s policy is a big blunder,” says von Eggart. “Even in the Soviet days the Politburo wasn’t influencing in the U.S. elections because they knew they’d have to work with whoever was the next American president.»

Yet von Eggart predicts the Kremlin will double down in the event of a Clinton win on November 8th. “They’ll blow out of proportion any irregularities to say the Trump was denied victory.”

The hope, he adds, is that Trump will continue to “sow chaos” in the U.S. political system, distracting Washington elites while Moscow defends its own interests.

Check out NewsGram for latest international news updates.

Meanwhile, foreign policy analyst Frolov argues the Kremlin’s focus on undermining the current U.S. campaign is merely “a shot across the bow” ahead of Russia’s own presidential elections – scheduled for 2018.

Vladimir Putin, in and out of power since 1999, has yet to declare himself a candidate. But Frolov suggested a future memo to Washington regarding the election day 2018 was already being drafted:

The message: “Who are you to judge?” (VOA)

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2016 NewsGram

Next Story

The Japanese Bombings And American Falsification

In a war, there are no true victors, as the axiom goes, but as far as the story of Hiroshima and Nagasaki are in focus, it is safe to quote the Gnostic author Elaine Pagels. She had famously said “It is the victors who write history. Their way”.

0
hiroshima-nagasaki
It is time to address the myths one by one.
Ms Tania Bhattacharya
Ms Tania Bhattacharya

By Tania Bhattacharya

On the 6th and 9th of August 2018, the Allied bombings of the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki completed seventy three years. It is urban legend that humanity’s most famous atomic attacks, were a necessity, which had subsequently brought an intransigent, warmongering Japan to its knees, leading to its surrender and the cessation of the Second World War.

While Japan’s aggression along with its Axis co-conspirators is in no doubt, the American justification for its action of bombing Japan, and indeed the collective Allied decision to carpet-bomb the German municipality of Dresden, implementing Operation Meetinghouse on Tokyo, along with the ethnic cleansing of the Sudeten Germans in the former Czechoslovakia, and the mysterious ‘suicide’ of Nazi prisoner-of-war Rudolf Hess in 1994, are receiving the attention of whistle-blowers and conscientious historians, alike.

This piece focuses on exposing the convenient narrative over Hiroshima and Nagasaki, as it has been fed to people within and without the United States for more than seventy years.

If the American account of the events is to be believed, Japan was unwilling to surrender even after six years of internecine conflict that had subsumed most of the globe. The bombs were dropped over two Japanese cities as a last, desperate action to stunt the country’s advance and force it to stop. The United States had never comprehended that it would have to resort to a measure as tragic as what happened. The whole thing had been a ‘necessary evil’, that had the full backing of the American people.

ATOMIC ATTACK
A pall of smoke lingers over this scene of destruction in Hiroshima, Japan, on Aug. 7, 1945, a day after the explosion of the atomic bomb. (AP Photo)

In 1965, this version of the events was taken to the cleaners, by the investigative journalist Gar Alperovitz. Alperovitz’ path-breaking research over the Pacific war is collated in the compendium ‘Atomic Diplomacy: Hiroshima And Potsdam’, a treatise that has stood the test of time, unlike Tsuyoshi Hasegawa’s apologist tome ‘Racing The Enemy: Stalin, Truman, And The Surrender Of Japan’.

It is time to address the myths one by one.

A) ‘Japan Was Forced Into A Surrender’.

In reality, Japan had surrendered a few weeks prior to the cessation of hostilities. It had considered an unconditional capitulation to the Allied Forces, something that American intelligence documents that were only declassified in 1976, have revealed. Here is an excerpt from the document titled ‘Estimate of the Enemy Situation’ that was presented at the Potsdam Conference to the Combined Chiefs of Staff of the United States. The event took place on the sixth of July in 1945, a month before the bombings. “We believe that a considerable portion of the Japanese population now consider absolute military defeat to be inevitable. The increasing effects of sea blockade and cumulative devastation wrought by strategic bombing, which has already rendered millions homeless and has destroyed from 25% to 50% of the built-up area of Japan’s most important cities, should make this realization increasingly general. Although individual Japanese willingly sacrifice themselves in the service of the nation, we doubt that the nation as a whole is predisposed toward national suicide.”

The aforementioned document is significant, in that it goes on to emphasize Japan’s willingness to accept U.S. terms of the former’s laying down of arms. “A conditional surrender by the Japanese government might be offered by them at any time now until the time of the complete destruction of all Japanese power of resistance.”

Furthermore, the report goes on to state, that “Japanese ruling groups are aware of the desperate military situation and are increasingly desirous of a compromise peace.” A month before Nagasaki and Hiroshima faced their fate, American military leadership was well aware of Japan’s anxiety in seeking a surrender.

B) ‘The bombings were a last-ditch effort at reining in the enemy’.

Hardly. As Gar Alperovitz writes in Atomic Diplomacy, in the late April of 1945, American secretary of war, Stimson, wrote a note to President Truman, stating,

“Dear Mr. President,

I think it is very important that I should have a talk with you as soon as possible on a highly secret matter. I mentioned it to you shortly after you took office, but have not urged it since on account of the pressure you have been under. It, however, has such a bearing on our present foreign relations and has such an important effect upon all my thinking in this field that I think you ought to know about it without much further delay.” ~ Secretary of War Henry L. Stimson to President Harry S. Truman, on the 24th of April 1945.

 

President Harry S. Truman
President Harry S. Truman

The secret matter was regarding the Lend-Lease agreement that the United States had been a partner to, along with the erstwhile Soviet Union. Russia – a name that has been used interchangeably with ‘Soviet Union’ – with its contribution to the war effort since the late June of 1941, had suffered considerable losses in manpower and materials. Its devastation cannot be overstated. It had been the wish of the Russian top echelon, that the Americans would forward an indemnity to them in the shape of a loan. The loan that the Russians were looking forward to, amounted to billions of dollars. By the standards of the 1940s, it would have been a gigantic sum of money.

While the Americans were willing to help Russia in her post-war rebuilding efforts, they were increasingly intimidated by her expansionism. The Soviet sphere of influence now engulfed all of Eastern Europe including the strategically crucial location of Poland. Despite being allies during the Second World War, Russia could no longer see eye to eye with her western comrades-in-arms around the time the cessation of hostilities was occurring. After their brief camaraderie while fighting the Axis Powers, the free-economy supporting West split with the Communist Soviet Union, with each going their own way in protecting their interests.

A man charred from the resulting radiation of the bombings.
A man charred from the resulting radiation of the bombings.

When time arrived for the Potsdam Conference, Churchill was pushing President Truman in exacting his pound of flesh from the Soviets, who were clearly no longer perceived as allies of the West, but were seen as an ideological behemoth that was best done away with.

Was there a way in which Russia could be arrested in her advance over the globe especially in Eastern Europe? Perhaps under duress, she could be forced to back down? This duress had to be caused by something magnificent. An astonishing show of technological strength, that would make the Soviets rethink their obstinacy over political matters. Something, that was good enough to warn them, that America – as team captain for the West as a whole – was far superior and thus, not to be messed with.

The absence of moral courage is notable in the demeanour of the leading Americans of the time. Very few, like Roosevelt, actually displayed any. In 1941, when Roosevelt was sticking his neck out in favour of the Lend-Lease agreement – to the tune of six billion dollars – with the Soviets, Senator Truman was shooting down the initiative with these words “If we see that Germany is winning the war, we ought to help Russia, and if Russia is winning, we ought to help Germany, and that way let them kill as many as possible……”

The Following Generations Felt an Immediate effect of the radiations. Many chilldren were born deformed.
The Following Generations Felt an Immediate effect of the radiations. Many chilldren were born deformed.

An immediate showdown was how the point men of the United States, planned to rein in the Communist Soviet Union. This is demonstrated with finality by the following paragraph culled from the personal diary of President Truman, in Gar Alperovitz’s Atomic Diplomacy:

“(Secretary of State) Byrnes had already told me…..that in his belief the bomb might well put us in a position to dictate our own terms at the end of the war.” ~ President Harry S. Truman on a conversation with James F. Byrnes in April 1945.

The post-war credit of six billion dollars due to be received by a Russia devastated by war was ultimately withdrawn by the American leadership and two days before he left for the British capital, we have a diary entry by the American Assistant Secretary of War John J. McCloy, that recorded a conversation that had recently transpired between him, and Truman. Byrnes’ opposition to Stalin and his influence over the decision-making ability of President Harry Truman, was well known to McCloy.

Men were incinerated due to the radiation of the bombings.
Men were incinerated due to the radiation of the bombings.

“Jim Byrnes had not yet gone abroad and I had a very good talk with him afterwards sitting in the White House Hall…..I took up the question which I had been working at up in St. Hubert’s, namely how to handle Russia with the big bomb. I found that Byrnes was very much against any attempt to cooperate with Russia. His mind is full of problems with the coming meeting of foreign ministers and he looks to having the presence of the bomb in his pocket, so to speak, as a great weapon to get through the thing……”

It is notable, that striking a teetering Japan with an atomic holocaust, quite unnecessarily, to end a war that was all but over with Japan seeking surrender on American terms, was never on American minds. Instead, President Truman, and the mastermind James Byrnes, were interested in threatening the Soviet Union through a display of atomic power, in the hopes of containing her and preventing her expansionism in Eastern Europe, and by extent, elsewhere.

It seemed ‘morally right’ to the United States, that Japan be turned into cannon fodder, with millions of innocent Japanese citizens being killed or maimed and future generations inheriting the damaged genetics of their bombed ancestors, if their arch enemy, the Soviet Union, could be contained.

C) ‘There was an overwhelming American consensus over Hiroshima and Nagasaki’s fate’.

This terminal myth deserves a thorough confuting. We have already learnt under what circumstances the Americans were proposing using their atomic technology. Not Japan, but a muscle flexing Russia was the target. John Hershey, author of ‘Hiroshima’ has written “The Atomic Bomb was first of all an intimate, personal, highly individual experience. To walk the streets of Hiroshima today is to be forced to recognize the obvious: A young housewife passes, walking arm in arm with an elderly woman, perhaps her mother-in-law; three schoolchildren, maybe nine years old, scamper up the road; a tired, aged garbage collector makes his rounds. Such people remind us that such people then, individuals, were the ones who felt the experience of Hiroshima; and it was a very, very direct one indeed. Reflect for a moment on the death of a loved one, perhaps a father or a mother; reflect on a moment of personal illness. There is no way to grasp the meaning of Hiroshima, ultimately, to 200,000 individuals. In the attempt, however, it may be possible to begin to break loose from the abstractions to know what nuclear warfare meant, really, to fellow human beings.”

Of the few men in power who could exercise their conscience over the bombing of two Japanese cities, and whose words perhaps reflected the regret of many ordinary Americans who were never asked for an opinion, were the observations of Admiral William D. Leahy and those of Eisenhower. “I was not taught to make war in that fashion” Leahy had noted. As for Eisenhower, he is reported to have felt sick at the thought of the mass destructions of Nagasaki and Hiroshima. “It wasn’t necessary to hit them with that awful thing”, was an entry in his personal diary, a view probably echoed by millions of American citizens themselves.